Stussy88

The second season of 'Terminator: The Sarah Connor chronicles' has just finished in the UK. It was a bit in-and-out with some episodes better than others, but if you can get it, you might take a look.

I don't know of General Smith's work, I will try to find it. Um, Yes, this Cuban government was massively threatening to the US when the nukes were present. Same government, but that's not really my point. I was asking if, by supporting militia/terror groups, this is a declaration of war? I think it is not. Whilst a hostile act, it is not, all out war. So, if you believe that by supporting groups in Iraq and Lebanon, as well as knocking off political rivals in Europe, Iran declared war of the US, then you must surely concede that the US has declared war on any number of countries by supporting anti-government groups. This is more than a mere technical point. Brook's later analysis is little more than "pub-bore" simplistic stuff about bombing and regime change, conflating 9/11 with Iran and hoping for the best with no clue how to achieve it. The stuff about the regime giving a nuke to a terror group is ludicrous paranoia. How long would Iran exist, if a terror group nuked a western city with an Iranian nuke? About 10 minutes. They know this. They send others to their deaths, but for example, the Iranian president did not suicide bomb the UN and kill loads of world leaders. Does anyone think he was searched on the way in? They themselves don't want to die, albeit they are evil mystics. The "threat to Israel" stuff is comic. Israel has around 100 nukes, Iran has none. Who is threatening who? And before anyone starts with the "wipe Israel of the map" quote, look at the accurate translation of the remark. You might also want to ponder which state in the area HAS actually been wiped of the map and by whom? I honestly don't think the Israelis and their cheer-leaders are capable of rational thought on this issue. Brook normally makes a lot of sense, but I think emotion has got the better of him here. I'm not saying the Iranians aren't a problem, they are, but just sending in the bombers is not the way. We have several trump cards such as oil refining technology that they would love to get but sanctions deny them. Their civil airliners are falling apart due to lack of spares, so a good, strong negotiator could get what we want and not make nonsense sabre rattling remarks, which we don't have the infantry to back-up (bombing alone would never do it) and ban Iranians from Facebook (no seriously). This just cements the clerics in position.

Has the US declared war on Cuba? No. There is a massive difference in scale between supporting militia/terror groups and formal declaration of war, as you surely see.

Have to disagree, this is a flawed analysis. Haven't we heard this stuff about middle-eastern madmen who are really, gosh-darn honestly this time, developing WMD's (no this time we are right, honestly). Can you fall for this stuff twice? Brook is advocating a declaration of war. 9/11 was of course NOTHING to do with Shia Iran so you see how confused his analysis is.

In one sense they do. Because drugs are illegal, dealers cannot go to court to resolve disputes so they resort to force. Another, quite amazing thing about drug prohibition, is that by refusing to decriminalise drugs we make certain that THE TALIBAN will continue to have a secure source of funds for their terror campaigns. If we grew enough heroin, lawfully in say Turkey, Taliban would be reduced to throwing rocks at our troops, yet by maintaining the ban, we make sure they have plenty of money for guns, explosives and ammunition. DRUG LAWS FUND THE TALIBAN!! So let's be sensible and grow our own drugs not buy from these bastards.

Now you come to mention it, there was no attempt to reason with us! It was a nasty, authoritarian state school. The deal was basically obey or be beaten. I'm not sure how much I would have listened as I rather liked building and racing boats, but no effort was made. I guess for state employees, dealing with 100's of kids with no incentives to perform better and no way to be fired, they just resorted to beatings. That and a healthy degree of sadism from the man who inflicted the beatings. Time to revisit the 'horrible revenge' plan

Well my "crime" was to be building paper boats and racing them on a stream which went through our school. I could never see why this was forbidden at the time, but I now realise they were probably worried about possible drowning and also various water born diseases like Weils disease etc My injuries were not substantial, some brusing aside and as I seemed immune to rational persuasion at the time (as a juvenile) I would have to say, probably, yes, the use of force was unpleasant but reasonable. I never went back, though at the time I recall plotting horrible revenge on the teacher!! Needless to say, I did not carry out this plan as an adult.

A personal anecdote if you will allow me. Aged about 12 as a schoolboy, I was subjected to corporal punishment. It seriously hurt on a physical level and was humiliating. I never transgressed again to such a degree as to warrant said punishment. For me the deterrent worked. I suspect it worked for others to as ours was a rough, but more or less ordered school.

I have to agree. The moment you stop and think about the “War on drugs” it’s patently absurd from pretty much every angle as well as a gross rights violation. So of course, as HL Mencken once observed, the whole purpose of modern government is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be lead to safety by an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. The government likes this as it lets them take money and liberty away from those who refuse to think.

Okay a quick prediction. 1. The credit card companies obviously did not pay enough/any tribute to the Messiah and are thus going to be hit with punitive legislation dressed up as consumer protection (watch for some gruesome closed door fund raisers pre-2012!) 2. The companies broadly accept the new legislation and respond by not offering credit cards to the highre risk users who would have otherwise been covered by bona fide contract terms 3. The greivance-mongers blame the companies for not offering credit to the "disadvantaged" and then one of two things happens, possibly in combination (a) legislation is passed forcing the companies to give cards to anyone who appies thus forcing up costs for everyone else who now have to cover the feckless (like the CRA was for housing, and we know how well that worked out) (B ) A Fannie-Mae type type government credit card is launched which is unpopular as it sympolises someone who is a pooor credit risk. The scheme looses millions and eventually collapses in a corruption scandal All too predictable.

We have exactly the same legislation in the UK, so when I attend Football matches (i.e. soccer) theoretically, you can't smoke. I am delighted to report this law is completely ignored and the trouble with arresting 2-3,000 people is too much for the cops (whose primary duty at footie is to prevent crowd disorder).

I agree, she should be interviewed. Presumably after being read her rights and in the presence of an attorney!

Heck of a shame Jan wasn't around in 1776 because with her distaste for tea parties she could have been on our side and her Brittanic majesty would still be in charge.... Damn people and their refusal to submit to tyranny and all. Tug your forelock like a good serf and be on your way.

Seven, in case anyone is wondering, I had a Brit passport so I thought **** 'em I could always plead ignorance I posted 'em in the UK on my return, all to Spain.

Obama's brother denied UK entry It is notoriously difficult to secure sex attack convictions in the UK incidentally.